Log in

View Full Version : Listen to Zarqawi



HankMorgan
27th January 2005, 06:10
Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online writes about Musab al-Zarqawi. (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501261009.asp)

"In short, the notion that America is in a war for freedom over tyranny has elicited bipartisan snickering and guffawing. In the wake of Bush's inaugural, the chorus of complaints intensified. And understandably so, given the fact that his address was the most forceful articulation of his "freedom" vision to date.

But before the cackles could reach their crescendo, the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

There's an interesting link to The Middle East Media Research Institute contained in the article.

On a side note:

CNN had a poll asking:
Would you be willing to sacrifice your own life to create a democracy in Iraq?

Exploited Class
27th January 2005, 14:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:10 PM
On a side note:

CNN had a poll asking:
Would you be willing to sacrifice your own life to create a democracy in Iraq?
I think a better question would be,
"Am I willing to force somebody else to sacrifice their own life to create a democracy in Iraq."

No. It is easy for me to make my life dispensible for my ideals, but it is unthinkable for me to force somebody else to.

I surely would not sacrifice my life for this piss poor excuse for a democracy. Yippee, I died so 200+ anonymous canidates could all lose to the American favorite who get's automatic air time and was propped up by a foreign government prior to this much talked about vote. Nevermind that the Iraqi governing council didn't even want this guy, they wanted somebody else and the US occuping forces wouldn't allow it to happen.

redstar2000
27th January 2005, 17:47
Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

If Bush were an honest man, he would say exactly the same thing, of course.

Al Qaeda's major "image problem" is that they are old fashioned...and have not yet learned to lie convincingly.

Once they hire some famous "political consultants" from the U.S., their "image" will definitely improve.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

HankMorgan
28th January 2005, 05:55
Ahh...I see. President Bush is just like Zarqawi in your view, redstar.

My view is a little different. The President sets up polls. Zarqawi blows up polls. Seems pretty clear to me.

With your view, redstar, are you ever surprised by world events?

Latifa
28th January 2005, 07:27
My view is a little different. The President sets up polls. Zarqawi blows up polls. Seems pretty clear to me.

The President rigs polls also. Both are pretty backwards, agreed?

HankMorgan
29th January 2005, 05:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:27 AM
The President rigs polls also. Both are pretty backwards, agreed?
Comrade Latifa, I must agree with your post.

Let's consider the 1960's when the Democrats in America controlled the US Senate, the House, the Presidency, most of the state governorships and most state legislatures. Since then all of that has turned around. The US Senate and the House both have a Republican majorities. For 24 of the last 36 years the White House has been occupied by a Republican. At the state level most legislatures have a Republican majority and most governors' mansions are occupied by Republicans. Republicans have been winning at all levels of government for decades, culminating in President Bush's win last November when he was the first President since Jimmy Carter to be elected with more than 50% of the vote.

What can we conclude from the Republicans' decades long winning streak? Obviously that Republicans, including the President, are prodigious cheaters. How could anyone find any other conclusion. Am I right, Latifa?

The conclusion that Republicans are cheaters can set priorities for Democrats. Clearly they should spend all their time and effort in making sure elections are free and untampered. No time should be wasted in considering why they are out of sync with the voters.

Exploited Class
29th January 2005, 07:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:54 PM
What can we conclude from the Republicans' decades long winning streak? Obviously that Republicans, including the President, are prodigious cheaters. How could anyone find any other conclusion. Am I right, Latifa?
No it goes back to the military industrial complex which we were told to be aware of by Eisenhower, and the attack on it during the 60s by the progressive left, which was triggered by the vietnam war. Since it is considered that we lost the war because of a loss of support on the homefront, since then large media has been consolidated by large right wing corporations which have a stake in an ever growing military budget. Hence why you see a 400 Billion dollar a year military budget in comparison to the world's #2 top spender Russia at a small 80 Billion.

GE purchased NBC, Westinghouse CBS, The advent of right wing radio began in the 80s spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh. The Moonies purchased Washington Times..ect..ect.

Around this time think organizations were also created as fake sources to inject into news stories. Using skewed and often inaccurate numbers which could be refuted, the refuted statements rarely make it on to network news or end up on page 37. These often single-issue groups have the ability to create multi-issue networks that can respond on a wide range of issues. The names are often deseving, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Policy Analysis, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Campaign for Working Families PAC. Those facts and figures brought by these groups rarely met opposition since there were no opposing single issue organizations setup to counter them and do the research. Through media laziness, those figures would often trickle down into radio airwaves and be retold by "radio personalities", who didn't define themselves as "news or media sources" didn't have to give in to false information given out as long as it was slander or liable.

The evangelical christians, prior to the 60s not a partner with the GOP, began adopting much of the same type tactics to sway general public opinion. They too created many single issue think tank organizations, purchased TV channels and created their own 700 club media network. Such successes were to increase fear of communism, hippies and promote a higher level of patriotism within their ranks. The often laughed about D&D scare of the 80s and of Satanic Cults lurking in every town and associating them with social outcasts, was on of thier earlier succesess. Such organizations like Family Research Council, American Family Association, Traditional Values Coalition..ect..ect.

The right wing then co-opted terminology and vocabulary to push back liberals and progressives. Attack words were Traitors, Slackers, Dissilusioned, Complainers, Trouble Makers, Smelly, Dirty, Unpatriotic..ect..ect. While adopting their own, like defending, Moral Values, Family Values, American, Patriotic.

This marriage of the GOP with The Christian Evangelicals worked out well, he would openely attack and put down the women's movement and immediatly have a christian right wing think tank like Concerned Women for America, backing him and giving him support. Likewise to push a tax program which his VP earlier called, "Voodoo Economics" because he knew it was a bad economic model, a group like National Taxpayers Union, backing Trickle Down Economics, sending a mix message to even progressives since the work Union was used to confused the quick newspaper reader.

Reagan won his presidency against Carter because at the time of the campaign Iran took American hostages. Carter, who has been acredited as one of the most diplomatic presidents of our time was unable to get them released. Public Opinion of Carter dropped as the Iran Hostage crisis grew. Media focused almost solely on this one issue with a lot of help by the only decade old media outlets being bought up by the right wing conservatives. Today there are more deaths, not hostages, of American civilians in Iraq and the air devoted to them has been less than 1% of the amount of time spent on the American Hostages in Iran. That is even with more media outlets now than before. The hostages were oddly released just days following Reagan's inaguration. Later it would come to light that Reagan had been doing shady deals in the Iran Contra Scandal. Deals were made to keep the hostages in Iran till Reagan was elected.

The White House releases the finding - signed by President Reagan on January 17, 1986 - authorizing the sale of arms to Iran and ordering the CIA not to tell Congress. Also released is the 2 1/2 page memo justifying the policy.

"The simple truth is, 'I don't remember - period'" - President Reagan writing to the Tower Commission to set the record straight about whether he authorized the arms shipment in advance.

President Reagan responds to the Tower Commission with a 12-minute speech in which he:
· Acknowledges that the Iran-contra affair "happened on my watch"
· Says nobler aims of long-term peace "deteriorated...into trading arms for hostages"
· Calls the deal "a mistake"
As for his "management style", the problem was that "no one kept proper records of meetings or decisions," which led to his inability to recall approving the arms shipment. "I did approve it," says the President. "I just can't say specifically when." He adds, "Rest assured, there's plenty of record-keeping going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

During the testimony about Iran Contra.
John Poindexter is reported to have used the phrase "I can't recall" (or some variation thereof) 184 times during his five days of testimony.

During two days of testimony, Ed Meese used the phrase "I can't recall" (or some variation thereof) 340 times.

It is like the most forgetfull administration in the world. S&L scandal the check cashing scandal was swiflty dealt with. Bush then did this as President on December 25th so nobody would be paying any attention.

http://www127.pair.com/critical/pardonsm.jpg

Poindexter who is a felon and has been charged with a treason, who was later pardoned by Bush on Dec. 25th, enjoys work on CNN's Crossfire at times and other political media outlets.

The final blow to the democrats was the impeachment of President Clinton. Reagan who admitted to trading weapons for hostages, nothing. The investigation into the Iran Contra which spanned countries and continents... not even a fraction of the cost spend hunting President Clinton for 6 years for Whitewater. 286 Million dollars later (more expensive than pulling an exploded passenger plane out of the bottom of the ocean, resembling it and figuring out why it exploded) found nothing of wrong doing in whitewater investments, but did find a Blow Job and a cheating husband.

In 2000 George Bush lost the presidential election, later total recount of all the votes would have made Al Gore president. A 5-4 Federal Supreme Court ruled in favor for Bush on a State Issue, handing him the presidency.

George Bush is now being found out to have paid for propaganda by paying off 3 (that we know of so far) editors. Editors that never discloused this information to their readers.

So yes, they lie cheat and steal.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
30th January 2005, 05:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:27 AM

My view is a little different. The President sets up polls. Zarqawi blows up polls. Seems pretty clear to me.

The President rigs polls also. Both are pretty backwards, agreed?
You ever see what it takes to take a six inch knife, with your bare hands, and stick it into a persons throat all the way to the hilt? Then slice through bone and flesh to remove the head?

That is backwards. I can send you video of Mr. Zarqawis friends doing this to a unarmed European, from a country that oppossed Mr. Bush.

HankMorgan
31st January 2005, 03:03
Exploited Class, come sit on the park bench and we'll feed the pigeons as we talk.

You brought up many things in your post that would be great threads unto themselves. I'll pick the most interesting one to me and then ask you a question.

You talk about how the media contributed to loss of support for the Vietnam war and imply that the military industial complex consolidated its hold on the media to prevent a future loss of support. If you look at history, just the opposite has happened. My friend you couldn't be more wrong.

In the early 1970's it was the established corporate media in the form of Dan Rather of CBS that took on President Nixon. Again, just before the election last November it was the established corporate media in the form of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes of CBS that used a forgery to attack President Bush. I believe you posted that CBS was purchased by Westinghouse. This time things are different with the wide variety of news outlets we have. My own daily sources run from CBS, CNN and Fox News to Al Jazeerah. Now it's so easy to find alternate sources for news that the truth can always find a way to the people. With the internet it's so easy for the information presented by the media to be checked for accuracy. When Mapes and Rather lied to the people they were caught quickly.

In the past information was tightly controlled and it was not at all favorable to Republicans. Now with free flowing information the truth gets out and Republicans are thriving. I don't think it's a coincidence from what I've seen in history.

Now I ask you, with all the crimes, evil and dastardliness you wrote about, how is it that Republicans keep on winning and winning? How is it a nit wit criminal like George Bush can get re-elected, this time with a higher percentage of the vote?

Is the world really the way you think it is?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
1st February 2005, 05:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:27 AM

My view is a little different. The President sets up polls. Zarqawi blows up polls. Seems pretty clear to me.

The President rigs polls also. Both are pretty backwards, agreed?
Just checking again about Bush and Zarqawi. You seem to be comparing the two on the same level of 'backward' when mentioned together in the same text? Are you making such a comparison? Or are they backward on different levels?

Do you or do you not agree that if Bush is backward, he is not backward in the same sense as pushing the tip of a six inch knife into the throat of a living person all the way to the hilt? So is Bush backward the same way?

t_wolves_fan
1st February 2005, 17:00
Originally posted by Exploited Class+Jan 27 2005, 02:46 PM--> (Exploited Class @ Jan 27 2005, 02:46 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 11:10 PM
On a side note:

CNN had a poll asking:
Would you be willing to sacrifice your own life to create a democracy in Iraq?
I think a better question would be,
"Am I willing to force somebody else to sacrifice their own life to create a democracy in Iraq."

No. It is easy for me to make my life dispensible for my ideals, but it is unthinkable for me to force somebody else to.

I surely would not sacrifice my life for this piss poor excuse for a democracy. Yippee, I died so 200+ anonymous canidates could all lose to the American favorite who get's automatic air time and was propped up by a foreign government prior to this much talked about vote. Nevermind that the Iraqi governing council didn't even want this guy, they wanted somebody else and the US occuping forces wouldn't allow it to happen. [/b]
You just explained why all those people joined the armed forces: They volunteered to lay down their lives for their country and their beliefs. You just said you'd do the same.

I find it sad that in a thread about a man who said he is declaring war on democracy, you could only bring yourself to criticize the U.S.